Zgryźliwość kojarzy mi się z radością, która źle skończyła.
//-->.pos {position:absolute; z-index: 0; left: 0px; top: 0px;}Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 287e296Contents lists available atSciVerse ScienceDirectJournal of Environmental Psychologyjournal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jepNatural area visitors’ place meaning and place attachment ascribed to a marinesettingChristopher J. Wynveena,*, Gerard T. Kyleb, Stephen G. SuttoncaDepartment of Health, Human Performance, & Recreation, Baylor University, One Bear Place 97313, Waco, TX 76798, USADepartment of Recreation, Park, & Tourism Sciences, Texas A&M University, MS-2261, College Station, TX 77843, USAcSchool of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Qld 4811, Australiaba r t i c l e i n f oArticle history:Available online 16 May 2012Keywords:Place meaningPlace attachmentMarine settingsGreat Barrier Reefa b s t r a c tInvestigations of place have often focused on either place meaning (utilizing interpretive designs) orplace attachment (using quantitative measures). Rarely have researchers explored the associationbetweenplace meaningandplace attachment.Hence, this investigation was designed to explore howindividuals’ attachment to a natural environment is reflected in their depictions of why the resource ismeaningful.We began with 20 key informant interviews designed to identify the meanings visitors ascribed toplaces in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The meanings identified were used to create a question-naire, addressing the thoughts and feelings that visitors ascribed to the marine park, which wasadministered to a larger sample (n¼324) of visitors to the marine park. Results suggest that, asa particular meaning becomes more salient to the individual, the individual has a distinctive cognitive,emotional, and behavioral response to the meaningdevoking a greater degree of attachment.Ó2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.1. IntroductionEach year seven million people visit Australia’s Great BarrierReef Marine Park (a World Heritage Area managed by the GreatBarrier Reef Marine Park Authority) to pursue several differentrecreational activities (GBRMPA,2007).Recreational visitors (i.e.,local residents and tourists who use the reef for a recreationalactivity) contribute over one billion dollars annually to theAustralian economy (Harriot,2002).Given the sheer magnitude ofrecreational visitors and their contribution to the local and nationaleconomy, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA)has identified these individuals as an important stakeholder group.Over the past three decades, as democratization of the naturalresource management process has occurred, it has becomeimperative that managers understand the attitudes that variousstakeholder groups hold toward natural resource recreationsettings (Cortner& Moote, 1999).One way to gain an understanding of the attitudes recreationalvisitors hold toward the natural environment is to examine theplace meanings from which these attitudes stem. Work examiningthe meanings people associate with place falls under the rubric of*Corresponding author. Tel.:þ1254 710 4056; fax:þ1254 710 3527.E-mail addresses:chris_wynveen@baylor.edu(C.J. Wynveen),gtkyle@tamu.edu(G.T. Kyle),Stephen.sutton@jcu.edu(S.G. Sutton).0272-4944/$esee front matterÓ2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.05.001place attachment and other related concepts (e.g.,“placebonding”and“genresof place”) (Altman& Low, 1992).Two terms have oftenbeen used in the place literature to discuss an individual’sconception of place; place meaning and place attachment. Placemeanings are the cognitions and/or evaluative beliefs concerninga setting that reflect the value and significance of the setting to theindividual (Stedman,2002). Kyle, Graefe, Manning, and Bacon(2003)defined place attachment as“theextent to which an indi-vidual values or identifies with a particular environmental setting”(p. 250)dthe intensity of the human-place bond. Although placemeaning and place attachment have been used independently inmany studies, it is important to note the singularity of the terms.The words used by an individual or group to describe the meaningsascribed to a setting not only reflect why a place is valued, but alsoindicate (albeit to a lesser degree) the intensity of that value.Specifically, these words can convey the combination of an indi-vidual’s emotional intensity and cognitive response to a place(Wynveen,Kyle, & Sutton, 2010).Similarly, place attachment indi-cates the intensity of the human-place bond, but also abstractlyaddresses the value of the setting through an understanding of thedimensions (i.e., place identity, place dependence, affectiveattachment, and social bonding) that comprise measures of placeattachment. Although place meaning and place attachment repre-set a similar set of ideas, authors may intentionally choose one orthe other in response to their research questions, which suggest288C.J. Wynveen et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 287e296differing methodological approaches (Lalli,1992).Specifically, twodifferent epistemologies have predominantly been used to inves-tigate the meanings an individual ascribes to a setting and theirintensity of attachment. Place meaning has been used in conjunc-tion with interpretive designs (Kyle& Chick, 2007; Tuan, 1977).These studies provide tremendous insight into the character ofmeanings, but may only reflect the meanings of a select few peopledue to small sample sizes. On the other hand, the term placeattachment has most often been used with quantitative designsthat have focused on the intensity of attachment with a secondarypurpose of description (Kyle,Mowen, & Tarrant, 2004; Williams,Patterson, Roggenbuck, & Watson, 1992).The place attachmentscales used in these studies often divide an individual’s placeattachment into dimensions that provide abstract insight into themeanings people associate with places. This dichotomy has inad-vertently created a gap in the literature’s understanding of place(Farnum,Hall, & Kruger, 2005):the connection between the spatialcontext (i.e., the unique set of attributes that are contained ina place) and individuals’ lived experiences in the setting and theindicators that illustrate the intensity of attachment (but onlyabstractly capture the basis of the attachment). Simply put, what isthe association, if any, between place meaning and placeattachment?Hence, the purpose of this investigation was to explore howrecreational visitors’ attachment to a marine resource is reflected intheir depictions of why the resource is meaningful. To achieve thisgoal, a mixed-method approach was designed to overcome thelimitations of single-method approaches. Wefirstidentified themeanings ascribed to places in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park(GBRMP) by recreational visitors through a set of 20 key informantinterviews. Then the meanings identified were used to createa questionnaire, addressing the thoughts and feelings that GBRMPvisitors ascribed to the reef ecosystem, which was administered toa large sample (n¼324) of individuals who have interacted withvarious settings in the GBRMP.2. Literature reviewAs indicated, much of the place-related literature can begenerally divided into two groups: investigations of what isimportant about places with which people develop a bonddplacemeaning (e.g.,Schroeder, 1996; Stokowski, 2002);and quantita-tive investigations of the relationships involving the intensity ofthat bonddplace attachment (e.g.,Moore & Graefe, 1994; Stedman,2003b).In accordance with previous research (e.g.,Stokols & Shumaker,1981; Wynveen et al., 2010),we conceived of the place meaningand place attachment constructs as being socially constructed.Hence, places are“repositoriesand contexts within which inter-personal, community, and cultural relationships occur, and it is tothose social relationships, not just place qua place, to which peopleare attached” (Altman& Low, 1992,p. 7). Using this conceptuali-zation of place, it is appropriate to consider the terms“place”or“setting”in this paper as synonymous withBarker’s (1968)“behaviorsetting.” Behavior settings are social constructions thatresult from individual sense-making and interactive behaviorwithin a group through a consideration of setting facets (e.g.,people, behavior objects, personal cognitions and motives, culture,and setting history) and temporal stages related to the interactionbetween the individual and the setting (Wicker,1987).2.1. Place meaningTuan (1977)suggested that an unknown setting is a“blankspace” that only becomes a“place”when endowed with meaningthrough lived experience (i.e., participating in behavior settings).Many authors (e.g.,Greider & Garkovich, 1994; Milligan, 1998)havesuggested that the subjective definitions of the objective attributesthat comprise a place are the basis for place meanings. Specifically,individuals use symbols (e.g., language) to express the value ofa place to themselves and others. In turn, meanings form throughthe use of these symbols during interactions among the setting, theindividual, and the individual’s social worlds. Hence, meanings canbe held by both the individual and the collective (Saleebey,2004).Through social interaction, meanings held by the group influencethe meanings an individual ascribes to a place. That is, the symbolicmeanings shared among group members lend themselves to theformation of a persondplace bond among individuals (Blake,2002).The meanings ascribed to particular places often reflect thephysical characteristics of the setting and the social interaction thatoccurs there (Eisenhauer,Krannich, & Blahna, 2000; Kyle & Chick,2007).Nassauer (1995)posited that this is because landscapeattributes (i.e., physical characteristics) and the meanings sharedwithin a group about those attributes are related in a continuousfeedback loop. People ascribe meaning to the attributes and theninteract with the setting with those meanings in mind, thuscreating new experiences which, in turn, redefine the meaningsascribed to the setting (for a more detailed explanation of the roleof social interaction in the construction of place meaning, theauthors suggestMilligan (1998)andWynveen et al. (2010)).Humans are especially attracted to natural environments.People of western cultures ascribe the meanings of solitude andaesthetic beauty to natural and pristine environments (Williamset al., 1992).Furthermore,Manzo (2005)observed that peoplegenerally ascribe the meanings to natural settings related toprivacy, introspection, self-reflection, and exploration. She alsofound that people’s favorite places were often near their homes,thus convenient to visit, and were different from their work orhome (e.g., open spaces with scenic views rather than confinedspaces and views often found in offices). Finally, Manzo indicatedthat visiting favorite places allowed an individual to express theiridentity.Beyond the meanings that people ascribe to natural environ-ments generally, some meanings are specific to protected areas thathave been set aside for conservation, natural resource recreation,etc. These meanings may result, in part, from the culturally definedsymbols that are embodied in labels such as“NationalPark,”“NationalForest,” and“wilderness”(Kyleet al., 2004).For example,in a study of place meanings ascribed to the Bitterroot NationalForest,Gunderson and Watson (2007)identified seven differentmeanings associated with frequently visited areas. Thefirstwas“easeof access to wild places,” which was centered on therespondents’ ability to access trailheads and places that facilitateddesired recreational activities. The meaning labeled by the authorsas“natural-roadless,”concerned the physical attributes of thesetting; namely, that the landscape was devoid of human builtstructures. In a related theme, respondents indicated that idealsrelated to scenery and natural beauty comprised the“scenicallyattractive” meaning theme. The authors identified the“physicalfeatures of significance” meaning theme as describing theflora,fauna, streams, and other physical attributes of the setting. Theirrespondents also indicated that the setting was meaningfulbecause it represented a“uniquecontrast to everyday settings.”Gunderson and Watson defined the theme labeled“familiar,historically important, or tradition” as meanings that have to dowith family or cultural traditions. In a recreation-specific context,Bricker and Kerstetter (2002)reported on the meanings that riverrafters associated with the South Fork of the American River inCalifornia. Their respondents indicated that the river’s beauty (e.g.,C.J. Wynveen et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 287e296289natural landscape and power of theflowingwater), their sharedexperiences with friends (e.g., the bonding that occurs whilesharing common experiences), and the joy of running the river (e.g.,the excitement of participating in their desired recreationalactivity) were important meanings.2.2. Place attachmentAlthough descriptions of place meanings paint a detailed pictureof the affective, cognitive, and behavioral aspects of the relation-ship between the individual and a setting, they do not capture theemotional intensity of the human-place bond in a way that allowsfor empirical testing of relationships with other constructs. Hence,place attachment scales have been developed. Just as place mean-ings are attributed to symbols of the landscape, the attachment anindividual feels is with the meanings that are expressed throughsymbolic representations of the setting’s physical attributes, less sowith the landscape itself (Stedman,2002).In this vein,Williamset al. (1992)suggested a two-dimensional scale composed ofplace identity and place dependence. Place identity refers to thecognitive connection with the setting, which is a substructure ofthe global concept of self-identification (Proshansky,1978).Placedependence has been conceived of as the functional utility ofa setting in providing for achievement of a certain goal (Stokols&Shumaker, 1981).Other researchers have suggested additionaldimensions, including familiarity, belongingness, and rootedness(Hammitt,Backlund, & Bixler, 2006; Hummon, 1992; Mesch &Manor, 1998; Nasar, 2000).To capture the degree to which the participants identified with/valued the GBRMP, our investigation utilized the place attachmentscale developed byKyle et al. (2004).This scale expanded theoperationalization of place attachment (i.e., place attachment ascomposed of place identity and place dependence, as describedabove) by also including an affective dimension and a socialdimension. The conceptualizations of place identity and placedependence were carried over fromProshansky (1978)andStokolsand Shumaker (1981),respectively. Affective attachment is definedas the emotional bond to a place that is formed from interactionwith the environment (Jorgensen& Stedman, 2001; Milligan, 1998).The construct of social bonding asserts that social ties to a settingare developed through shared experiences in the place (Mesch&Manor, 1998).Mesch and Manor observed that the more closefriends and neighbors their respondents had nearby, the highertheir level of attachment was.Although several decades of research have sought to identifyand refine the recreation literature’s understanding of place, thereremains a paucity of research exploring how individuals’ attach-ment to a setting is reflected in their depictions of why the place ismeaningful. Only a few studies have tangentially addressed thisissue. For example, based on a social construction framework,Milligan (1998)hypothesized, but did not test, that:Every interaction [within a setting] bestows some form ofmeaning on its stage, transforming that site into a known place,but when the interaction involves a higher degree of meaning,whether or not that meaning is perceived at the time, the placebecomes the site of place attachment. (p. 28)Furthermore,Stedman (2003a)indicated that the meaningspeople ascribe to a setting shape their attachment to that setting.He found that place meanings mediated the relationshipbetween the physical characteristics of the setting and therespondent’s intensity of place attachment. Understanding howattachment is reflected in meaning is important for furtheringthe literature on place because, as it stands now, studies utilizingquantitative scales often ignore the specific objective andsubjective attributes and social systems in which attachment isfostered. Hence, these investigations provide little insight intowhy settings of interest are important to people. The presentinvestigation attempted to mitigate this problem by connectingthe descriptions of the setting’s meaning with the indicators ofthe intensity of attachment (that more abstractly capture theirbond with the setting).3. MethodsWe collected data to explore how recreational visitors’ attach-ment to the GBRMP was reflected in their depictions of why theresource is meaningful using a mixed-method design. Thisapproach allowed the use of a sequential exploratory design (i.e.,the qualitative phase was used to identify potential relationshipsthat were tested in the quantitative phase) (Hanson,Creswell,Plano Clark, Petska, & Creswell, 2005).3.1. Phase I3.1.1. SamplingTwenty key informant interviews were conducted during Julyand August of 2008. The initial pool of key informants was sug-gested by the GBRMPA because the individuals were knowledge-able about recreational visitors to the GBRMP, and included at leastone individual from each of the following groups: tourist industryrepresentatives; resource managers; and recreational visitors, bothlocal resident users and tourists (in fact, all informants were alsorecreational visitors to the GBRMP). Additional informants wereidentified through a snowball technique. The key informantsranged in age from 24 to 70 (M¼46) and 13 were male. Theinformants’ length of interaction with the reef ranged from threeyears to a lifetime, although most respondents had been recreatingnear the Great Barrier Reef for 20e25 years. As suggested byCreswell and Plano Clark (2006),interviews were conducted untilthe data obtained reached saturation.3.1.2. Interview promptsAlthough the interviews were purposefully designed to beconversational, two prompts that pertain to this investigation wereadapted fromSchroeder (1996)to ensure that discussion stayedrelevant to the place meanings each informant ascribed to theGBRMP. Thefirstprompt asked informants to give a physicaldescription of a place within the GBRMP that stood out in their“mindas being important, memorable, meaningful, or special” tothem personally. The second prompt asked them to“describethethoughts, feelings, memories, and associations that come to mindwhen you think about this place..”3.1.3. Data analysisUsing transcriptions of the interviews andfieldnotes, thefirstauthor and a colleague coded the key informants’ statements andsorted them into discrete elements that represented different ideas.Following the open coding of respondents’ transcripts, we evalu-ated the list of 34 ideas using constant comparison to identifysimilarities and distinctions by comparing one segment of datawith another segment developing initial categories. These cate-gories were compared to one another in light of new data, even-tually resulting in thefinalset of themes (Merriam,1998).Thisprocess elicited 10 themes. The inter-rater reliability (Holsti’s test)between the two researchers for the themes identified from thesedata was 90.9%, indicating an acceptable level of reliability (Miles&Huberman, 1994).For a thorough description of the qualitativeportion of this study, seeWynveen et al. (2010).290C.J. Wynveen et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 287e2963.2. Phase II3.2.1. Survey designInphase II,we designed a survey instrument based on thefindingsemerging fromphase I.Specifically the 34 unique ideasthat were identified from the informants’ statements during theopen coding and constant comparison process were used todevelop the survey items related to place meaning. Relevant to thisanalysis, the survey included the 34 statements representing the 10place meaning themes. Respondents were asked to indicate theimportance of each of the meaning statements to them in regardsto the GBRMP (respondents were prompted to think of an impor-tant or meaningful place in the GBRMP when responding to theseitems, however if they did not have a specific place they were askedto consider the GBRMP as a whole). They indicated their responseson afive-pointscale, where: 1¼Only slightly importantand5¼Extremely important.It is important to note that by allowing therespondents to pick a specific place (40% of our respondents) or theGBRMP as a whole, there is a variation in scale of the placesconsidered when responding to the meaning and attachmentitems, thus limiting the interpretation of our data. However, otherstudies (e.g.,Bricker & Kerstetter, 2002)have also found thatrecreational visitors’ often cite a wide range of geographical scaleswhen discussing place meaning and attachment to natural resourceareas.To assess the level of the respondents’ place attachment, theywere asked to respond to 16 items (4 dimensions: place identity,place dependence, affective attachment, and social bonding) (Kyleet al., 2004).Respondents indicated their level of agreement witheach statement on afive-pointscale, where: 1¼Strongly disagreeand 5¼Strongly agree.3.2.2. SamplingThe sample for this survey was obtained through a telephonesurvey that was part of a larger study on the values associated withthe Great Barrier Reef. Thefinalquestion of the telephone surveyasked respondents living in areas adjacent to the GBRMP if theywere willing to participate in a follow-up written survey. If so, theywere asked if they preferred to receive the written survey viaelectronic or postal mail. Seven hundred and twenty-seven (71%) ofthe phone survey respondents agreed to participate (none of thedemographic or visitation variables differed significantly betweenthose who chose to participate and those who did not). Usinga modifiedDillman (2000)method the surveys were distributedfrom November, 2008 to February, 2009. Those who chose theemail option received an email and survey four times over an eight-week period, whereas those who chose the postal mail option werecontacted three times, receiving: (1) a cover letter and survey; (2)a postcard reminder; and (3) a second survey and cover letter. Thisprocedure elicited a 49% response rate with 106 of 235 respondingto the email survey and 218 of 431 completing the postal survey(n¼324). The respondents ranged in age from 18 to 82 years old(M¼50;SD¼13.8). Just over half were male (57%). Only a few hadnot completed their secondary education (6%), most had attendeda technical college (58%) or university (29%), and seven percent hadgraduate-level education. Respondents’ incomes were welldispersed with about half (52%) earning less than $60,000 (AUD)per year, almost one-third earning between $60,000 and $99,999,and the remaining respondents earning over $100,000 per year. Allrespondents indicated that they had visited the GBRMP to partici-pate in a recreational activity; 76% (n¼229) had done so in the pastyear. On their last visit to the GBRMP the primary activity manyparticipated in was recreationalfishing(n¼85, 28.3%). Others wentto: walk along a beach (n¼77, 26%); SCUBA dive/snorkel (n¼31,10%); or swim (n¼28, 9%).3.2.3. Data analysisThe survey data were analyzed byfirstperforming a set ofconfirmatory factor analyses (CFA) using LISREL 8.80 to assess thehypothesized 10-theme place meaning model and the four-dimensional place attachment model. Also, a Cronbach’s alphawas calculated for each of the factors as an indicator of the scales’internal consistency. To facilitate the remainder of the analysis wecreated new variables representing the factor means (the mean ofthe items loading onto each factor) reflecting each of the ten typesof place meanings and the four place attachment dimensions.To aid the analysis of the link between the context (as indicatedin the place meaning scale) and the intensity of attachment (asindicated by the place attachment scale), the respondents weregrouped by their responses to the place attachment scale. Since theconceptualization of place attachment used in this investigationwas based on previous research that reinforced the multi-dimensional nature of the construct, we used cluster analysis (K-means procedure) to account for each of the place attachmentdimensions simultaneously while identifying homogenoussegments of respondents (Milligan& Cooper, 1987).The advantageof this method is that the categories are based on the respondents’place attachment scale responses rather than being assigneda pri-oriby the researcher.To determine how the recreational visitors’ attachment to theGBRMP was reflected in their depictions of why the setting wasmeaningful, wefirstconducted a set of ANOVAs that compared themean score of importance of each of the 10 place identity themesamong the four levels of attachment intensity identified in thecluster analysis. Although the ANOVAs provided insight as to howindividual meanings were associated with place attachmentintensity, these tests did not assess whether two or more meaningssimultaneously depicted a setting context that was reflected in thediffering attachment intensity groups. To do so and to learn moreabout the relationship between place meaning and attachmentintensity, a multinomial logistic regression was conducted. Thisprocedure allowed us to determine how certain aspects of thesetting depicted in the respondents’ place meanings werecombined to reflect their attachment to the GBRMP. Based on theliterature suggesting that people ascribe meanings to a place andthen become attached to those meanings (Milligan,1998),theindependent variables used were the ten constructed variablesrepresenting each of the ten place meaning themes. The dependentvariable was the respondent’s place attachment intensity groupingthat resulted from the cluster analysis of the four dimensions ofplace attachment. To assess the adequacy of the regression model,we calculated its classification accuracy, chi-square statistic, andNagelkerke pseudo R-square.4. ResultsThe meanings that emerged fromphase Iof the investigationwere used to create 34 survey items (Table1).The importance thatrespondents indicated on each of these items was analyzed alongwith their responses to a place attachment scale to connect thecontext of the setting with the indicators of attachment intensity.The results of each phase follow.4.1. Phase Idkey informant interviewsCoding of the transcripts of the informants’ narratives revealed34 unique ideas. Using constant comparison to identify similaritiesand distinctions, ten themes emerged from these data. We presentdescriptions of the themes below in order to provide context forremainder of the analysis of the association between place meaningand attachment (for a more detailed description of each theme,C.J. Wynveen et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 287e296Table 1Place meaning importance - item means, factor loadings, and reliabilities.Factored theme (item)Aesthetic beautyThe seascapes and landscapes are beautifulI enjoy the sounds of the waves and wildlifeThe tropical beaches are special[The water is very clear]aLack of built infrastructure/pristine environmentThe reef appears healthyIt is a pristine environmentThe vastness of the GBR around my place puts things into perspectiveThe place provides a wilderness experienceThere is little evidence of human built structuresAbundance and diversity of coral and other wildlifeThe amount, diversity, and structure of the coral is uniqueThe numbers and diversity in types of wildlifeUnique natural resourceIt is important because it is part of a World Heritage AreaThe GBR is a natural wonderThe place has a unique set of corals, other wildlife, and water qualityIt has inherent value because it is part of the natural environmentFacilitation of desired recreation activityThere are a lot of different things to doIt is a good place for the kind(s) of recreation I enjoy[I am able to catchfishthere]aSafety and accessibilityIt is easily accessibleIt is a safe place to beCuriosity and explorationThe area provides a sense of exploration and curiosityIt challenges me to be self-reliant[The weather is constantly changing]aConnection to the natural worldI feel like I am a part of the placeI feel connected to the natural worldEscape from the everydayThe place makes me feel calm, tranquil, and/or peacefulBeing there provides escape from everyday lifeI feel happy or good or a sense of pleasureI can be alone or I feel a sense of solitude[The place is isolated from the rest of the world]aFamily and friendsI enjoy being there with family and friendsI feel a sense of connection to my ancestorsI want to pass my family’s knowledge about the place to younger GenerationsBeing there makes me feel like I am part of a lifestyle that is unique to the areaItem mean4.424.094.08e4.314.343.793.983.614.033.913.854.574.134.263.564.18Factor loading.72.84.74e.58.69.79.85.52.67.75.49.78.77.81.65.72Std. error.07.09.09e4.01 (.81).08.08.09.08.113.97 (.99).09.094.20 (.81).12.07.08.083.87 (.98).10.093.59 (1.07)3.603.594.093.11e3.433.564.224.244.313.65e4.382.403.833.94.66.74.70.58e.78.72.67.84.90.60e.61.46.59.76.11.113.59 (.97).09.11e3.49 (1.16).11.114.11 (.83).09.08.08.10e3.64 (.86).09.12.11.09.71.82.71.58.65.63.80.67.82Factor mean (SD)4.20 (.88)291Cronbach’s alpha.81Means based on a 5-point scale: 1¼Only slightly important; 5¼Extremely important.Model:c2¼608.30, df¼360; RMSEA¼.08; NFI¼.94; NNFI¼.97; CFI¼.97.aItem removed due to low factor loading/cross-loading.along with examples of the informants’ narratives, seeWynveenet al. (2010)).4.1.1. Aesthetic beautyThefirstseveral place meaning themes identified were defined,in part, by the informants’ interaction with the physical attributesof the setting. While describing what was labeled theaestheticbeautytheme, many informants cited the clarity and color of thewater, the sandy beaches, the beauty of the coral reef structures, theopenness of the views, and/or the sounds of the waves and wildlife.The informants used several common descriptors to qualify thevisual appeal of the places they discussed, such as“amazing,”“fabulous,”and“spectacular.”4.1.2. Lack of built infrastructure/pristine environmentIn addition to theaesthetic beauty,many informants highlightedthe lack of a built environment. Since the key informants oftenlinked the lack of built structures with descriptors such as unde-veloped, pristine, wilderness, and others, the theme that emergedfrom these ideas was labeledlack of built infrastructure/pristineenvironment.For the informants, this meaning was constructedfrom a combination of cognitive (e.g., the categorization of simi-larities and differences between a specific setting in the marinepark and other settings in the informants’ lives) and emotional (e.g.,the enjoyment of solitude) responses to interacting with thephysical attributes of the setting. There was also evidence thatsocially constructed symbols, such as the term“wilderness,”hada shared definition among the informants, which shaped themeanings they ascribed to the GBRMP.4.1.3. Abundance and diversity of coral and other wildlifeBesides the inanimate objects contained in the setting, theinformants also indicated that their interaction with wildlifecontributed to the meanings they ascribed to the GBRMP. Severalpeople expressed their excitement toward the wildlife by quicklylisting all the species with which they had come into contact;moreover, each of them specifically identified the quantity anddiversity of coral.4.1.4. Unique natural resourceMany of the informants made it clear that they thought theMarine Park contained a unique natural resource by contrasting itzanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl hannaeva.xlx.pl